Anarchism vs Anarchists

I understand that there is some reasonable theory behind anarchism, so why is it that every single anarchist turns out to be an insufferable prick who doesn't know what they're talking about at all?

Pic very much related

Other urls found in this thread:

libcom.org/history/“revolutionary-syndicalism-serves-proletariat-whereas-anarchism-one-brand-humanism”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory

It's the easiest thing for a liberal to latch onto after being embarrassed by the Democratic party. They don't have to worry about some of the baggage that Marxism brings with it or wrestle with concepts like revolutionary authority. In a lot of these "anarchists" minds it's just make revolution and then implement full communism. Don't get me wrong, though, there are a lot of serious anarchists/anarchist theory and I think they're critique on power/hierarchy are valuable. It's just a safe place to jump if you're a college liberal.

Wow people on the internet are fucking retarded that's totally exclusive to anarchism every other ideology is full of geniuses.

Okay, asked this on dubtrack last night.

Has any left-anarchist society existed in reality? Was discussing Catalonia, when the Anarchist guy said that the Spanish Anarchists were actually reformists rather than full Anarchists.

If that's the case (I doubt it tbh), can anyone actually be a full Anarchist?

kekalonia was anarchist, and it failed, because anarchism is…….bad

I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt for at least a few days.

Also, what's the Anarchist definition/analysis of a state?

You should find brighter friends.

tbf, he said that they were reformist in terms of operating within state bodies (the CNT-FAI) taking seats in the Spanish Republic's Popular Front government.

Still, seems nebulous to me.

Check out tankie twitter and you'll see something even more bizarre. Just stay off of it, it's a waste of time.


Well seeing as all socialist projects failed I guess we're stuck in capitalism then.

has communism, excluding primitive communism, ever actually existed? tbh if you had to point to actually existing societies as the end-goal of your movement, most leftists would not have much of anything to work with.

gee, I guess not.

They weren't reformists. He's probably referring to the CNT collaborating with former petite-bourgeoisie in the Central Miltia Committee. They were so spooked by authority that they felt pluralist democracy was the only way forward.

because people on the internet are dumb. Could say the same about basically every movement (perhaps with the exception of titles whose name implies that you've read something, "Hegelian socialist" for example would be a tough position to take if you haven't read Hegel.)

Luckily you don't have to point to actually existing societies as your end-goal, we are not living at the end of history yet.

It was Paris Commune that failed because of Anarchism. Catalonia was fucked up due to several reasons, Anarchism is only one of them.

Nah. That's acceptable (not self-contradictory) interpretation. The real question would be how proper Anarchist non-state should look like. This is where "pure" Anarchists inevitably go AnCap.

Communist economic relations obviously exist. The air you breath, for example, is free, no? Your shitposting on Holla Forums could also be considered as done under Communist economy.

Arguably, ultra-rich are effectively living within the mostly Communist economy (provided the rest of Mankind is interpreted as machines - personally, I don't agree with this).

It was me who said that in the dubtrack, I didn't say that they were all reformists but that there were reformist tendencies in Spanish anarchism even before they collaborated with the government. Here is an interview with Juan Garcia Oliver, who became the minister of justice for the second republic: libcom.org/history/“revolutionary-syndicalism-serves-proletariat-whereas-anarchism-one-brand-humanism”

This is clearly somebody who sees the organisation itself as more important than anarchism in general. Salvador Segui, Angel Pestana and others also had reformist beliefs within Spanish anarchism or the wider union movement associated with it.

It's also important to remember that part of the reason that was given for collaboration was to limit the power of other factions in the government.

And the point I made in the dubtrack about the POUM if it was a bit unclear, it was that before the revolution, the POUM would have preferred a much more hierarchical structure for their militias. The fact that they had to compromise by making them more libertarian so that people would join for me discredits any claim that the Spanish revolution wasn't a real social revolution.

Wow that aligns with my experience so well it's spooky.

Come on fam I think we can get some constructive criticism outta this

I'm fine with things being bourgeios, in fact, after we leave capitalism and statism and we enter into a transactionless communal society, I want robots to take over as much labor as possible and everyone to live like Porky.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory

Robespierre did nothing wrong

but primitive communism doesn't exactly count. It's really not the same as what most commies advocate for. If primitive communism counts as communism it oughta count as anarchism too because there was no state

yes, you fucking idiot. that's my point. saying "anarchism is unachievable

ahh so basically we're living in a mixture or communism and capitalism? sounds familiar… Anyways, once again you could argue that we make decisions/do things where the state is not involved.

The point of my post was that saying "anarchism never existed therefore anarchism dumb" is not a fucking argument. all I got in response were yet more non-arguments from marx-tards who don't have the reading comprehension to properly understand a simple shitpost.

checkers, is that you?